JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Through the medium of this Bail Application applicant-accused is seeking bail in case FIR No. 277/2015 registered against him in Police Station, Domana, Jammu which upon investigation was challaned in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Fast Track Court) for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376/420 RPC. It is contended by Mr. Raina, learned Senior Counsel that applicant-accused had moved the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court') seeking bail on the ground that a false and frivolous case has been registered against him. It is further contended that applicant was doing MBA from Ghangeri Mohali, Chandigarh and had come to see his family at Jammu and he has been arrested by the Police. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, application moved by the applicant-accused for seeking bail was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 28.09.2015, copy whereof has been appended with instant application as Annexure-A. 2. Bail Application amongst other grounds appears to have been rejected by the learned Trial Court primarily on the plea of the prosecution that in case applicant-accused is admitted to bail, he may jump over the bail and hamper and tamper with the prosecution witnesses and also on the ground that release of the applicant-accused at this stage and his remaining outside will cause deleterious effect on the mind of the general public and thwart the course of justice. 3. For facility of reference, ultimate paragraph of order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court containing conclusion of the Court below is reproduced as under:- "Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence attributed to the applicant-accused, the material place on record including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., the medical report of the prosecutrix and stage of investigation, in my considered view, there is force in the contention of Ld. APP that in case accused will be released on bail, he will jump over the bail and hamper and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, release of the accused at this stage and his remaining outside will cause deleterious effect on the minds of general public and thwart the cause of justice." 4. APP that in case accused will be released on bail, he will jump over the bail and hamper and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, release of the accused at this stage and his remaining outside will cause deleterious effect on the minds of general public and thwart the cause of justice." 4. During the course of arguments of this application, learned counsel for the applicant-accused and State have brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this application, charges against the applicant-accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376/420 RPC have been framed and challan has been set out for prosecution evidence. 5. Having failed to get the bail from the Trial Court, applicant-accused has approached this Court through the medium of instant application seeking his release on bail on the grounds taken in it. 6. Before this Court considers the grounds projected by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused for grant of bail and arguments put forth by the learned AAG appearing for the respondents-State to oppose the Bail Application, it would be worthwhile to take notice of the prosecution story as set out in the challan pending trial before the learned Trial Court. 7. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2011 accused approached the victim with marriage proposal, told her that he was in deep love with her and wants to marry her. Initially victim had refused the offer of the accused, however, with repeated persuasions and assurance of the accused, she had accepted his proposal and both of them were in love affair since 2011 and under the garb of the said promise to marriage; accused had sexually assaulted the victim on many occasions. It appears that in the month of October, 2012 accused had taken some nude clips and videos of the victim and threatened her that in case she will force him to marry her, he will upload the nude clips and videos on social media, resultantly, victim had not disclosed the matter to any body. However, in March, 2014 accused again approached the victim and asked her to marry with him assuring her that his parents were also in favour of their marriage. He also introduced her with his parents. However, in March, 2014 accused again approached the victim and asked her to marry with him assuring her that his parents were also in favour of their marriage. He also introduced her with his parents. In November, 2014 accused and his parents told the victim that accused will marry her, however, she should ask her parents to transfer their properties in the name of accused, thereafter accused entered into Marriage Agreement with the complainant on 12.01.2015 which was duly registered by Notary Public on the same day. Accused also assured her that he will marry her as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Arya Samaj Mandir after two months. However, later on, accused and his parents again approached her and her family members and persuaded them that he will marry the victim and, accordingly, on 04.09.2015, they executed a Marriage Agreement in the Court Complex, Jammu. However, after executing the said Agreement, they again refused to solemnize marriage and also snatched the agreement which was in possession of the complainant. Finally, the victim filed a complaint which was forwarded to the concerned SHO in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly FIR No. 277/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 RPC came to be registered against the accused. During the course of the investigation, accused has been arrested by the Police. 8. It is contended by learned counsel that accused petitioner has not made any sexual assault on the complainant. Rather petitioner accused married to the complainant and in this regard he relied upon Marriage Agreement dated 12.01.2015. It is further contended that had she been sexually assaulted against her consent, she would have reported the matter earlier. It was consensual sex so allegations levelled by the complainant cannot be relied. Apart from other grounds, which were taken by the applicant-accused before the Court below, it has been argued that offence punishable under Section 376 RPC is not made out against the applicant-accused. Other argument, which has been pressed into service by the applicant-accused before the learned Trial Court and also before this Court is that in the given facts and circumstances, and the nature of evidence as collected by the Investigating Officer, it is abundantly clear that applicant-accused and prosecutrix were in relationship for the last so many years, and on the basis of said relationship, they married and lived as husband and wife. Statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the applicant-accused in the Court below and here also is inherently contradictory and improbable being far from truth and not corroborated by any evidence collected during the course of investigation. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused before the Court below and here also that allegations made against the applicant-accused in the challan even if accepted to be correct without subjecting witnesses to the cross-examination could not, in the opinion of any competent Court of law, be treated to be prima-facie true. On the basis of these arguments, applicant-accused prays for grant of bail and for releasing him as he is behind the bars since 08.09.2015. 9. Learned Trial Court after considering the rival contentions, however, rejected the bail plea of the applicant-accused for the reasons given in the order and referred to hereinabove. As stated above in the meanwhile, challan too has been produced and prosecution has been asked to lead evidence. However, before the Court below framed the charges, applicant-accused herein through the medium of instant application is seeking his release on bail inter alia on the grounds taken in it. 10. Reiterating the grounds of challenge taken in the Bail Application, learned counsel for the applicant-accused has submitted that although it is true that for the offence punishable under Section 376 RPC, applicant-accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right, but, the same is regulated by Section 497-A Cr.P.C., yet in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it makes a case where this Court would be of the opinion that there are no grounds for believing that accusations against the applicant-accused are prima-facie true. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused pointed out to the glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., and learned counsel also referred to the medical evidence to substantiate his submission that offence of rape had not been committed at all as there was no medical evidence placed on record by the prosecution. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused further argued that allegation of prosecutrix that she has been sexually assaulted against her consent is wrong. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused further argued that allegation of prosecutrix that she has been sexually assaulted against her consent is wrong. It is contended that petitioner had never any physical touch with the complainant, yet, even if it had been assumed by Police, that complainant had to be believed in her assertion, the very fact is that she was herself admitting her marriage to applicant-accused. It is further argued that neither the petitioner had lured the prosecutrix nor on the promise to marry her had sexually assaulted her. Learned counsel has further urged that as per the prosecution case, applicant-accused and the prosecutrix was having love affair since 2011 and there was sexual relation between them, so had she been sexually assaulted against her consent, she would have reported the matter earlier. However, she has not reported the matter earlier, which shows that it was consensual sex, so offence under Section 376 RPC cannot be made out against him. He further argued that offence attributed to him is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, as such, there is no bar in granting bail to him and continuous incarceration of the applicant-accused is violative of his right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. Referring to the whole evidence concluded during investigation, it was argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., which is perhaps the only piece of some incriminating evidence against the applicant-accused, cannot be believed to be true even prima-facie, thus, disentitling the applicant-accused to the grant of concession of bail. It is also argued that the applicant-accused is in custody since 08.09.2015 and investigation has been completed and that there is no evidence of any attempt on the part of the accused or his relatives to influence the prosecution evidence. That being the position keeping the applicant-accused in custody particularly in the face of evidence collected during investigation would be punitive and would amount to punishing the applicant-accused without trial. 13. Per contra, learned AAG when confronted with the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-accused and nature of evidence collected during investigation submitted that pleas raised by applicant-accused even if presumed to have some force would be relevant during the course of trial. 13. Per contra, learned AAG when confronted with the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-accused and nature of evidence collected during investigation submitted that pleas raised by applicant-accused even if presumed to have some force would be relevant during the course of trial. As contended by learned AAG in the face of statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., which is primary evidence, accused cannot claim that there is no evidence connecting him with the commission of offence under Sections 376, 420 RPC. He further contended that offence of rape is very heinous offence and is crime against the Society, as such, the Courts should be reluctant to extend the concession of bail to the accused alleged to have committed such heinous offence against the women. He, however, was not in a position to meet other arguments raised on behalf of the applicant-accused. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration and the arguments raised on both sides and have carefully gone through the challan. 15. While considering the Bail Application, what is required to be seen is, the prima-facie involvement of a particular accused connecting him with the commission of alleged offence and its gravity or seriousness. Chances of tampering with evidence can also be a very valid ground for rejecting or accepting the Bail Application and at the same time, the Court has also to ensure that there should not be any hindrance in free, fair and just trial. 16. The principles which generally govern the grant of bail are relatable to following things:- "i. seriousness of the allegations, severity of punishment, the character of. evidence on which the charge is proposed to be sustained, possibility of tampering and intimidating the witnesses and chances of running away from the trial. ii. false implication of the accused, allegations leveled not believable and wrecking vengeance for political or business reasons." 17. The above principles are required to be kept in mind while exercising powers under Section 498 Cr.P.C. It is also to be noted that at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, the Court has only to go into the limited question as to whether a prima-facie case is established against the accused. It cannot go into the evidentiary value, credibility and reliability of the witnesses. It cannot go into the evidentiary value, credibility and reliability of the witnesses. However, while examining the bail plea of the accused, the circumstances under which crime is alleged to have been committed, the character and behaviour of the accused person is also to be examined. While general allegations that the accused will tamper with the evidence without there being any supportive material may not be a ground to refuse bail, however, if the accused is of such a character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will abuse his liberty to subvert justice or would tamper with the evidence, then bail may be refused. My view is fortified by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case titled State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 . What has been observed in this regard in paragraph 18 of the judgment is noticed as under:- "It is well settled that the matters to be considered in application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Gurcharan Singh v. State Delhi Admn.). While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan. (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan. (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas)." 18. It is terrible to see that rape rears its ugly facade almost every day. As per the National Crime Record Bureau, in India, a rape is committed after every 20 minutes. Rape being the fastest growing crime is undoubtedly one of the most deplorable, belligerent and atrocious act committed against the dignity of a woman. Rape has been held to be even more serious than murder which not only destroys the woman physically but also shatters her inner self by destroying her each living moment emotionally and psychologically. Rape is a crime against one's mind, psyche and reputation. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim and it becomes horrendous for the victim of rape to lead a dignified and well respected life in the society. It is very unfortunate that there is a high increase in the rape instances and ravenous maniacs are not even sparing the girls of a very tender age. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim and it becomes horrendous for the victim of rape to lead a dignified and well respected life in the society. It is very unfortunate that there is a high increase in the rape instances and ravenous maniacs are not even sparing the girls of a very tender age. Some of the recent rape cases have been so horrifying that the entire nation protested to condemn these barbaric acts and raised a voice to curb the said y menace by inflicting more severe punishment. 19. Undoubtedly, there is a manifold increase in the crime concerning rapes, but all the rape cases which are filed have their own individual story and factual matrix. While most of the cases may be genuine, wherein the girl is a victim of this horrifying crime, or has been forced, blackmailed, threatened to enter into physical relationship with a male on the false pretext of marriage with the sole intent to physically exploit the girl but there may be cases where both persons out of their own will and choice, develop a physical relationship. Many of the cases are being reported by those women who have consensual physical relationship with a man but when the relationship breaks due to one or the other reason, the women use the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta to extort money and sometimes even to force the boy to get married to her. Out of anger and frustration, they tend to convert such consensual sex as an incident of rape, defeating the very purpose of the provision. There is a clear demarcation between rape and consensual sex and in cases where such controversies are involved, the court must very cautiously examine the intentions of both the individuals involved and to check if even the girl on the other hand is genuine or had malafide motives. Cases like these not only make mockery of the sacred institution of marriage but also inflate the statistics of rape cases which further deprecates our own society. 20. Cases like these not only make mockery of the sacred institution of marriage but also inflate the statistics of rape cases which further deprecates our own society. 20. In the facts of the present case, as per prosecution case, accused and prosecutrix were having love affair since 2011 and there were sexual relationship between them so had she been sexually assaulted against her consent, she would have reported the matter earlier, however, she did not report, which shows that it was a consensual sex. She does not appear to be such a vulnerable lady that she would not raise her voice on being immensely exploited over such a long period of time. As per the prosecutrix, she had a physical relationship with the petitioner since 2011 and it is not just a single act of sharing physical intimacy but the same continued for almost a long period. There lies a possibility that the petitioner might have then refused to marry the prosecutrix and this refusal on the part of the petitioner gave a serious jolt to the prosecutrix who then agreed to solemnize the marriage with him by way of Marriage Agreement. It is an admitted case that the said marriage ultimately did not consummate. 21. The Court can also not be oblivious of the fact that the marriage between the complainant and the petitioner had indeed taken place and both the parties have not disputed this fact. Therefore, this circumstance by itself entitles the petitioner to the grant of the bail. It would be worthwhile to mention that being the victim of such a reprehensible crime, one should lodge a complaint immediately, or within a reasonable period of time unless there are sufficient reasons to explain the long delay. Delay in lodging an FIR, in such like cases can ultimately diminish the chances of conviction, as due to such delay, the medical evidence and the other circumstantial evidence may rarely be available to support the case of prosecution. It is a settled position of law that every case is to be dealt based on its individual factual matrix and no set principle or straight jacket formula can be applied specifically while dealing with bail matters where only prima facie view can be taken to appreciate the facts in a given case. 22. It is a settled position of law that every case is to be dealt based on its individual factual matrix and no set principle or straight jacket formula can be applied specifically while dealing with bail matters where only prima facie view can be taken to appreciate the facts in a given case. 22. It is true that offences of abduction and rape are more serious offences against the women and the person who is prima-facie found to have committed such offences is not entitled to the concession of bail. The offences more particularly against the women have been viewed to be offences against the Society at large and letting the accused on bail in such heinous offences, if prima facie committed, would definitely have deleterious effect on the mind of general public and would encourage re-occurrence of such crime, but, at the same time this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that there could be instances where these stringent provisions are also misused. Instances may be few, but, are not improbable. As per the prosecution story and the evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said sufficiently that accusations levelled against the accused are prima-facie true. The only incriminating piece of evidence collected during investigation is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. wherein prosecutrix claimed to have been subjected to sexual inter-course without her consent. She has not claimed that she was not married to petitioner, rather she had accepted that marriage agreement dated 12.01.2015 had been executed by petitioner and he was honouring the same. It is also admitted by the petitioner that he is not denying his status as being husband of the complainant nor was he denying the relationship of husband and wife, as such, there was no question of any offence having been committed by the petitioner and for which he had been arrested. There are other inherent contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix which would make accusations levelled by the prosecutrix prima facie improbable. In the light of this evidence, it would not be just and equitable to keep the applicant-accused in continuous custody particularly when investigation has been completed, challan has been presented and also when there is no allegation against the applicant-accused with regard to influencing prosecution or attempting to tamper with prosecution evidence. 23. In the light of this evidence, it would not be just and equitable to keep the applicant-accused in continuous custody particularly when investigation has been completed, challan has been presented and also when there is no allegation against the applicant-accused with regard to influencing prosecution or attempting to tamper with prosecution evidence. 23. On the basis of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to release the applicant-accused on bail subject, of course, to the following conditions:- "(i) The applicant-accused shall furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Presiding Officer of the Trial Court. (ii) The applicant-accused on being released on bail shall attend the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir State without the prior permission of the Trial Court. (iii) That he shall not try to give a slip to law in any way. Moreover, he shall not attempt to contort or influence any witness or any other person related to the case. (iv) In case of the applicant-accused violating any of these conditions, the State will be free to apply for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court, to accused." 24. With the above directions, this Bail Application is disposed of. However, it is made clear that any observations made hereinabove is only for the disposal of this Bail Application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case. Registry to send copy of this order to the learned trial Court forthwith. 561-A No. 469/2015 At request, segregated and to be listed again immediately after ensuing winter vacation.